It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"It Just Keeps Running and Running"

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Fromabove

If I push a ball on a flat surface. At the point where it leaves my hand, why does it go on for a bit? Is it because of the force of my hand, or inertia, well, not exactly.


Nope, that's pretty much it. It's inertia.




posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Mary Rose
reply to post by C0bzz
 


Are you assuming the technology editors of the German newspaper are gullible?


Yes. I haven't seen the Beeb get GPS right YET. And you'd think they would be well informed. The state of MSM science journalism is not what it once was.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 06:51 PM
link   

daskakik
Clear? I can say that the reason can be easily assumed but that still doesn't provide certainty.
Yes you can say that. But you can also say that you're fairly certain that given someone's claim that centuries of science are wrong and they have a new magic power source, and all they need to do to prove it is to do one simple thing and they won't do it, that even though your certainty is not exactly 100%, it's reasonable to say it's pretty close to that.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 

Assumptions are just assumptions. We don't know if he did take the next step or not or where that may have taken him.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Why would it mean that centuries of science are wrong? Why would it have to be a new magic power source?

Honestly, I question the claim, but being skeptical doesn't mean that you have to outright dismiss things.
edit on 31-1-2014 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Mary Rose
Engel's device is not exactly powered by a battery.


So what does it do with the battery removed?

It will do 1 of 2 things.

1/ Stop. If it stops it shows it was powered by the battery.

2/ Keep running. If it does this it shows it was not powered by the battery.

As it stops, that means 1 is the correct answer!



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 07:53 PM
link   
I don't see anything wrong with the small battery in the device per se. If the device is putting out a great deal more power because of the engineering of the powerful magnets than that battery provides then the device is worthwhile.

Too much is being made of the battery.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 08:01 PM
link   

daskakik
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Why would it mean that centuries of science are wrong? Why would it have to be a new magic power source?

Honestly, I question the claim, but being skeptical doesn't mean that you have to outright dismiss things.
All that has already been explained. But I'll explain it another way:

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

Strictly speaking, all claims require exactly the same amount of evidence, it’s just that most "ordinary" claims are already backed by extraordinary evidence that you don’t think about. When we say “extraordinary claims”, what we actually mean are claims that do not already have evidence supporting them, or sometimes claims that have extraordinary evidence against them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence because they usually contradict claims that are backed by extraordinary evidence. The evidence for the extraordinary claim must support the new claim as well as explain why the old claims that are now being abandoned, previously appeared to be correct. The extraordinary evidence must account for the abandoned claim, while also explaining the new one.
There is already an extraordinary amount of evidence such a device will not work. Couple that with the device maker's refusal to replace the battery with power from the output shaft and you can conclude it's bogus to a high degree of certainty.

You said maybe that certainty is not 100% and I agreed. But I suspect the percentage one would apply would approach 100% as a person's knowledge and experience with science increases, even if it's not exactly 100% based on what we have seen so far.

There is a very good reason for dismissing hoaxes like this, because there are much more promising technologies that aren't hoaxes that are a more productive use of time, so it's better to go work on those, and if in the meantime Engel decides to replace the battery with power from the output shaft and it still works, that's fine too, we'll have lots of fun rewriting the laws of physics to explain it. But until that happens I think it's a waste of time, and Nelson and House have set forth simple guidelines to avoid wasting their time on devices like this if they don't really work, and this device hasn't met those guidelines.

But if you or someone else wants to waste time on it, it's your time to waste. Knock yourself out.
edit on 31-1-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Mianeye
Magnets are not forever lasting, they run out of energy.

It can't run forever.


Neither can any electric motor, generator, engine, turbine...or come to that anything ever made by Human beings. Come to that, if you want to take the 'forever' thing further, the entire Milky way Galaxy isn't going to be 'forever' either.

So that makes your point moot doesn't it?

I'll happily settle for 100, 200, 300 or 400 years or so of neo magnets holding their magnetism before needing to be replaced, and periodic replacement of bearings and other mechanical parts, over an 'infinite forever' when we're talking about running
cost-free energy generation, after material costs using a device like this.

Your point is actually fairly pointless, and is a little like saying any life is not worth living for 70, 80 or 100 years, because you cannot maintain your body indefinitely.

However...all of this is moot if the device doesn't do what it says on the tin.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 08:28 PM
link   

hellobruce

Mary Rose
Engel's device is not exactly powered by a battery.


So what does it do with the battery removed?

It will do 1 of 2 things.

1/ Stop. If it stops it shows it was powered by the battery.

2/ Keep running. If it does this it shows it was not powered by the battery.

As it stops, that means 1 is the correct answer!


I can appreciate you are only claiming what is actually true..without the battery, or some other form of energy used to turn 'the mirror' magnet, the device will not work as is being claimed, i agree with you because you're correct.

Same as a Human being won't work without it's own energy sources to power cell function and metabolic functions etc.

But, it doesn't matter as far as the claimed device is concerned (i'm thinking of this as a 'hypothetical device' by the way), if a quantity of energy is required to drive the mirror, (a quantity of energy which must also be added and accounted for with the energy used to manufacture the magnets and the magnetic fields they retain, plus also the materials used to construct and maintain the mechanics of the device), actually results in an overall and continuous energy gain.

It's the overall gain that is the important aspect (if a gain does indeed exist, and i have no proof or knowledge that it does actually produce ANY gain of course), not whether or not energy is used to run, manufacture or maintain the device, if that combined energy expended is less than can be produced.

It's about the claimed energy gain, in real world applications, as opposed to physics theory that will be of use to most people who just want to make use of any gain in their everyday lives, and not necessarily those whos interest lies mostly in pondering the highs or lows of reclassifying physics theory.

The real question is...does it work as claimed. I don't know if it does or not. I know theory says it shouldn't and in all probability won't work as claimed, but we are a very adaptive species, and do make new discoveries that while don't usually nullify long held theory or scientific truisms, can add to alternative and original additions to them.

Or else, there'd really be no point to science at all.
edit on 31-1-2014 by MysterX because: typo



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Or else, there'd really be no point to science at all.

There would be no point in science if all we did was verify extremely well known phenomena time and time again. We know how magnetism works and have known for a very long time. There is therefore, no need to verify every single basic design that uses magnetism, especially something as laughable as this (PMSM with mechanically moved stator field using permanent magnets).

If you people were engineers you would never have the capacity to build any of the amazing technology we have today - like the electric power grid, computers, wireless communications, you would still be rearranging magnets is ever more useless ways, trying again and again, essentially, to verify than 1+1=2. That's how stupid these threads are.
edit on 31/1/14 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


Used in the context of my post you took it from, it's more reasonable a statement than you make it appear in yours.

We may know or understand magnetism as we're used to it..that doesn't mean for a moment that we know or understand it used in ways we're not used to..since we not used to those unusual ways...of course.

That is the point of science. To discover the new and to improve upon the old. Science is not about striving to reinforce the old by imagining there is 'no new'.

ETA:

Excuse me...what exactly do you mean by 'you people'? Do you think you know me?

What i'm talking about here is hypothetical...don't be afraid.

edit on 31-1-2014 by MysterX because: added info



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by MysterX
 



We may know or understand magnetism as we're used to it..that doesn't mean for a moment that we know or understand it used in ways we're not used to..since we not used to those unusual ways...of course.

I agree.


That is the point of science. To discover the new and to improve upon the old. Science is not about striving to reinforce the old by imagining there is 'no new'.

I also agree.

But this device uses magnetism in a way that we are used to. Therefore it isn't discovering the new and improving the new, it is reinforcing the old.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Bedlam

Fromabove

If I push a ball on a flat surface. At the point where it leaves my hand, why does it go on for a bit? Is it because of the force of my hand, or inertia, well, not exactly.


Nope, that's pretty much it. It's inertia.


Hmmm...it might be useful to realise the ball doesn't actually touch the table or the hand.

And also to know that there is a magnetic effect/ relationship happening in conjunction with the atomic forces of the atoms that make up the ball, table and hand. Not much actually touches anything in reality...not even my fingers on the keys on my keyboard.

If they did, it would create a very short lived existence for just about everything.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 





But this device uses magnetism in a way that we are used to. Therefore it isn't discovering the new and improving the new, it is reinforcing the old.


You may be right, i can't comment on the actual device with any conviction, i've not even laid eyes on it much less seen it working in the flesh.

I'm talking about a hypothetical device that hypothetically does do as this device's builder is claiming his does.

Seems like the same thing, but it isn't.

edit on 31-1-2014 by MysterX because: typo



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

I don't need you to explain that to me.

If the extraordinary evidence never comes, does someone really loose anything by not jumping on the internet and calling hoax?



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 12:23 AM
link   

daskakik
reply to post by Bedlam
 

Assumptions are just assumptions. We don't know if he did take the next step or not or where that may have taken him.


If he wants actual proof, he'd have to do it. He has not. He is saying (hand wave) ignore the battery and motor...it was too complicated to get rid of it, and really, it's such a LITTLE motor.

Right.

Like Keely. "Ignore the air supply under the table!"



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Mary Rose
I don't see anything wrong with the small battery in the device per se. If the device is putting out a great deal more power because of the engineering of the powerful magnets than that battery provides then the device is worthwhile.

Too much is being made of the battery.


If it IS putting out a great deal more power because of the magnets, then you don't need the battery, right?

The battery is a smoking gun of non-functionality. It's the only reason the thing appears to work.

eta: if the thing actually DID put out "a great deal more power", then you'd be right. It would be worthwhile. How do you judge that it's putting out a great deal more? You measure the power in and power out, that's one way.

In some designs, that's tough to do. For example, the Bedini, Bearden and Lutec scams. It's a hallmark of PM hoaxes that purport measurability that they input or output (or both) pulsed power. This is a tough thing to measure. It's why (IIRC) back in the last Lutec thread I said - "outputs pulsed power, right?" and I was right. Bearden got caught using a sine wave RMS meter on his pulsed transformer gadget eventually, which always gives you false readings, and you don't hear him talk about it much anymore.

But you can always measure it, even if it requires calorimetry to do. In this guy's case, he doesn't appear to have tried, and is appealing to perception - "it's such a TINY motor, and look, if I put my hand on the shaft, it's obviously exerting all this force!" However, the rotor has a big flywheel. You're not going to be able to judge it that way. If he had measured it, he'd be showing you the documentation. Hasn't even mentioned it. Just the bit about "look, the motor is very small! Ignore it!".

You could also measure the power the motor is consuming under load and compare it to dynamometry of the shaft. Hasn't produced any figures there, either.

The simplest way, if it's putting out all this extra power he claims, is to close the loop. But you never see Lutec, or Bearden, or Bedini or this guy or any of the others do that. Because they can't.
edit on 1-2-2014 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 12:30 AM
link   

MysterX
But, it doesn't matter as far as the claimed device is concerned (i'm thinking of this as a 'hypothetical device' by the way), if a quantity of energy is required to drive the mirror, (a quantity of energy which must also be added and accounted for with the energy used to manufacture the magnets and the magnetic fields they retain, plus also the materials used to construct and maintain the mechanics of the device), actually results in an overall and continuous energy gain.


If it has an overall energy gain, then you can easily close the loop and eliminate the battery. And wouldn't you really WANT to do that for your magic generator demo? Without it, what have you got?



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 12:35 AM
link   

MysterX
We may know or understand magnetism as we're used to it..that doesn't mean for a moment that we know or understand it used in ways we're not used to..since we not used to those unusual ways...of course.


Only this is a way we ARE used to, and have been used to it since Newton. Any "magnet motor" that works by moving magnets around each other is doomed to fail, no matter how complex the motion. Because that repulsion and attraction is symmetric with position. And it's symmetric no matter how you sneak up on it, or spin away from it, or how complex the spinning or moving is.

At least with Steorn, they weren't going for positional asymmetry. It was fresh and interesting. This, there's dozens like it using compressed air, or gravity, or springs, or magnets. And they all have that issue.




top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join